halofanonfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:RANKOR
look again Absolutely, the MAC is where it is at. But the MAC, from what I've read, came out in the 32nd century. The first translight drives came out in the 27th century. This is when the RANKOR system was tested. That leaves about 500 years of development. That's the difference equivalent to the Conquistadors' cannon and an M1 Abrahm's tank. New military technologies quickly give way to advances which is probably why RANKOR was abandoned but seems to be the proof of concept behind the MAC. The MAC is supposed to hurl a 600 ton projectile at 40-50% the speed of light; a very similar but much improved concept. As to the gain in mass with acceleration, yes, time dialates as it were but mass also increases with the addition of velocity. mass = 1/2m(v^2)/(c^2) I see the problem We are speaking of two different masses and that is my mistake. I am speaking of relativistic mass which certainly changes with velocity. This additional mass is accounted for by addition of energy which makes the two nearly interchangeable. Mass is generally spoken of in reference to invariant mass which is what you are speaking of; admittedly, the correct assumption. In reference to the dates, I was mistaken. The concept behind RANKOR existed in the 20th century while the actual means and development of the project took place in the 23rd century. This was before humans had the capabilties to magnetically accelerate 600 ton projectiles to .40c or anywhere near it. 21:01, March 31, 2010 (UTC) Just so you know, FTL travel was also invented during the 23rd century. --'SPARTAN' Talk 21:37, March 31, 2010 (UTC) This is why Okay, so you see that this concept is within the realms of reality; it does not defy the laws of physics. As for implementing the system, here is why it makes sense. In the 23rd century, researchers were breaking boundaries and moving the boundaries of progress. The idea of slip space or a slip space drive that could move an object faster than light was as yet only theory. However, the technologies needed to produce such a drive system such as precision particle accelerators, antigravity field generators and everything else that goes into the complex system was on its way to maturity. Some of these technologies produced powerful and effecient engines capable of sustainly relatively high specific impulses over a long period of time. While powerful, these engines still required a long time to attain great speeds when compared with later fusion drive engines. This technology was seen as a cutting edge breakthrough and allowed for mankind to explore and populate the solar system. Such sub light speed drives were not rare anymore than advanced jet engines are rare in the 21st century. To say that using such sub light speed engines was a waste is like saying that its a waste of jet engines to produce and use precision cruise missiles. The tradeoff is clear. Though a 600 ton engineered projectile moving at 0.40-0.50 times the speed of light is certainly formidable, an asteroid of about 1km weighs several tens of thousands of kilograms depending on its density. An asteroid of 2 km moving at 100,000 mph would kill more than 25% of Earth's population as a direct result of a direct impact with Earth. No, the logic is sound. We don't use rockets to propell cruise missiles. We use jet engines: Block II/III TLAM-A, C & D - Williams International F107 cruise turbo-fan engine. Each total system (not engine alone) costs $569,000. These crusie missiles are good for one use. These are US Navy supplied facts. In an era (the 23rd century) where new energy production forms and space explloration engines are common and built on economies of scale, it is not far fetched to see a precursor system like project RANKOR funded and developed as an interim technology. As material sciences, energy generation, and slipdrive technologies advanced, RANKOR was mothballed in favor of more readily mobile weapons. You cannot honestly tell me that this article does not provide interesting, feasible, and even likely backstory in the development of HALO universe technologies. Oh, and about the engines on trees idea (LOL): we are talking about using in situ masses in space that are already at an orbital speed and need only be accelerated not mined, not shaped, not launched into orbit from another celestial body, just moved. Was the technology abandoned, yes. Was it a progressive, educational, black-op project? I say why not? The US government has spent billions of research dollars on projects that never saw the light of day or were majorly scaled back, but were pursued and were important none the less. Yes, they would have known what they were doing which is why they did it to test prolonged use of engine systems that produce great thust while using the energy expended in the test as well as a bit more to develop a potential weapons system which was collided with a very distant celestial body with the results measured and recorded. This yielded invaluable data that helped to produce heavy MAC cannons with greater lethality. Yeah, we have Gauss systems, but our current rail guns are not limited by how much power we have available but by how much power can be put through the magnetic rail system before it 1) melts 2) ionizes or 3) warps and becomes inefficient. The MAC cannon with all its destructive power is rooted in a 20th century concept but would only be made possible with big advances in material sciences and energy generation capability. Further evidence that this would happen: every spacefaring country has put forward some sort of proposal as to how to deflect an asteroid that is on an Earth intercept pathway. Several of these proposals involve using boosters then ion drive engines to steer the asteroid out of an Earth intercept pathway. That's here, that's now. Move ahead 200 years and tell me that this won't be done.